Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:26:33 +0000, bartc wrote: > >> The point of the article was Julia vs. Python. You can't make Python >> faster by switching to a faster algorithm; you have to use the same one >> on both. > > No, the point of the article was to write Python code that is as fast as > the Julia code.
I did not get that impression. In fact I was not really sure what the point was. At the start, the authors says "My take on this kind of cross language comparison is that the benchmarks should be defined by tasks to perform, then have language experts write the best code they can to perform these tasks." but if that is the point (rather the one on you picked up on) then the article could be, at best, only half the story. > I don't know why the Julia programmers chose to use such a poor > algorithm: It's odd indeed, but given that they did, what you take to be the point of the article -- to write a good Python algorithm as fast as the terrible Julia one -- seems a bit pointless. -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
